The Worst Is Yet To Come?

A new study from Texas A&M researchers details the impacts of stronger hurricanes and rising seas from a variety of global warming scenarios. “Flooding and damage from major hurricanes will be more severe,” said Jennifer Irish, the study’s lead author. “And the worse global warming gets, the more severe the consequences for the Texas coast.” The report is available on line from Texas A&M. Thanks to our old friend Bill Dawson and Texas Climate News for alerting us about this report.

Ted Eubanks
9 June 2009

Significant ESA Ruling

CNAH ANNOUNCEMENT

The Center for North American Herpetology Lawrence, Kansas http://www.cnah.org

9 June 2009

Defenders of Wildlife

The Center for Biological Diversity

COURT ORDERS ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION FOR FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD — FOR THE THIRD TIME U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must review decision to deny protections

San Francisco – In response to a lawsuit brought by The Center for Biological Diversity and a number of other groups, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to deny the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) protection under the Endangered Species Act was illegal and again ordered the agency to consider protection for the lizard.

“The Flat-tailed Horned Lizard is severely threatened by urban and agricultural sprawl and needs protection as an endangered species to survive,” said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director at The Center for Biological Diversity. “With today’s court decision, we hope the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has finally gotten the message that it can not legally deny this imperiled species protection.”

Significantly, the decision rejected a Bush administration policy developed by the solicitor of the Department of the Interior in 2007 that required the Fish and Wildlife Service to ignore loss of historic range when determining if species warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The decision observes that “the Secretary clings to his argument that lost historical habitat is largely irrelevant to the recovery of the species, and thus the ESA does not require him to consider it,” and then roundly rejects this position, concluding that past court decisions require “the Secretary to analyze lost historical range.”

“This decision goes beyond the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard by seriously undermining the Bush administration’s position that loss of historic range is not a basis for protecting species under the Endangered Species Act,” said Greenwald. “The courts have determined today that the Bush administration’s emergency room approach to species protection – in which only species that are on the brink of extinction everywhere are protected – is plainly illegal.”

The Flat-tailed Horned Lizard inhabits portions of southern California (Riverside, Imperial and San Diego counties), Arizona (Yuma county), and northwestern Mexico (Sonora, Baja Calif. N). It is severely threatened by habitat destruction caused by urban and agricultural sprawl, off-road vehicles, and other threats.

“This is the third time in the fifteen years since the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard was proposed for listing that a court has told the Fish and Wildlife Service to go back and review its refusal to protect the flat tailed horned lizard under the Endangered Species Act,” said Kara Gillon, senior staff attorney with Defenders of Wildlife. “These lizards need these protections now more than ever, if we are to avoid the loss of this species and the dwindling wild places that form its last refuge. We’re hoping that the third time’s the charm; these lizards are running out of time.”

The Flat-tailed Horned Lizard was first proposed for listing in 1993. The proposal has since been withdrawn three times with conservation groups successfully challenging each withdrawal in court. The groups involved in the latest court challenge include the Tucson Herpetological Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Horned Lizard Conservation Society, and Sierra Club, who were represented by attorneys Neil Levine, a private attorney, and Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity.

As the common name suggests, the species is recognized by its broad, flattened tail but also has long, sharp horns on its head, two rows of fringe scales along its abdomen, a dark stripe along its backbone, and concealed external ear openings. Adults of this species range in size between 2.5 and 4.3 inches long, excluding the tail.

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members and activists, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information, visit www.defenders.org

Contact(s)

Kara Gillon, Defenders of Wildlife, (505) 715-3898 Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495

The Value of Nature

(No) Drill, Baby, Drill

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Liberia, Costa Rica

Sailing down Costa Rica’s Tempisque River on an eco-tour, I watched a crocodile devour a brown bass with one gulp. It took only a few seconds. The croc’s head emerged from the muddy waters near the bank with the footlong fish writhing in its jaws. He crunched it a couple of times with razor-sharp teeth and then, with just the slightest flip of his snout, swallowed the fish whole. Never saw that before.

These days, visitors can still see amazing biodiversity all over Costa Rica — more than 25 percent of the country is protected area — thanks to a unique system it set up to preserve its cornucopia of plants and animals. Many countries could learn a lot from this system.

More than any nation I’ve ever visited, Costa Rica is insisting that economic growth and environmentalism work together. It has created a holistic strategy to think about growth, one that demands that everything gets counted. So if a chemical factory sells tons of fertilizer but pollutes a river — or a farm sells bananas but destroys a carbon-absorbing and species-preserving forest — this is not honest growth. You have to pay for using nature. It is called “payment for environmental services” — nobody gets to treat climate, water, coral, fish and forests as free anymore.

The process began in the 1990s when Costa Rica, which sits at the intersection of two continents and two oceans, came to fully appreciate its incredible bounty of biodiversity — and that its economic future lay in protecting it. So it did something no country has ever done: It put energy, environment, mines and water all under one minister.

“In Costa Rica, the minister of environment sets the policy for energy, mines, water and natural resources,” explained Carlos M. Rodríguez, who served in that post from 2002 to 2006. In most countries, he noted, “ministers of environment are marginalized.” They are viewed as people who try to lock things away, not as people who create value. Their job is to fight energy ministers who just want to drill for cheap oil.

But when Costa Rica put one minister in charge of energy and environment, “it created a very different way of thinking about how to solve problems,” said Rodríguez, now a regional vice president for Conservation International. “The environment sector was able to influence the energy choices by saying: ‘Look, if you want cheap energy, the cheapest energy in the long-run is renewable energy. So let’s not think just about the next six months; let’s think out 25 years.’ ”

As a result, Costa Rica hugely invested in hydro-electric power, wind and geo-thermal, and today it gets more than 95 percent of its energy from these renewables. In 1985, it was 50 percent hydro, 50 percent oil. More interesting, Costa Rica discovered its own oil five years ago but decided to ban drilling — so as not to pollute its politics or environment! What country bans oil drilling?

Rodríguez also helped to pioneer the idea that in a country like Costa Rica, dependent on tourism and agriculture, the services provided by ecosystems were important drivers of growth and had to be paid for. Right now, most countries fail to account for the “externalities” of various economic activities. So when a factory, farmer or power plant pollutes the air or the river, destroys a wetland, depletes a fish stock or silts a river — making the water no longer usable — that cost is never added to your electric bill or to the price of your shoes.

Costa Rica took the view that landowners who keep their forests intact and their rivers clean should be paid, because the forests maintained the watersheds and kept the rivers free of silt — and that benefited dam owners, fishermen, farmers and eco-tour companies downstream. The forests also absorbed carbon.

To pay for these environmental services, in 1997 Costa Rica imposed a tax on carbon emissions — 3.5 percent of the market value of fossil fuels — which goes into a national forest fund to pay indigenous communities for protecting the forests around them. And the country imposed a water tax whereby major water users — hydro-electric dams, farmers and drinking water providers — had to pay villagers upstream to keep their rivers pristine. “We now have 7,000 beneficiaries of water and carbon taxes,” said Rodríguez. “It has become a major source of income for poor people. It has also enabled Costa Rica to actually reverse deforestation. We now have twice the amount of forest as 20 years ago.”

As we debate a new energy future, we need to remember that nature provides this incredible range of economic services — from carbon-fixation to water filtration to natural beauty for tourism. If government policies don’t recognize those services and pay the people who sustain nature’s ability to provide them, things go haywire. We end up impoverishing both nature and people. Worse, we start racking up a bill in the form of climate-changing greenhouse gases, petro-dictatorships and bio-diversity loss that gets charged on our kids’ Visa cards to be paid by them later. Well, later is over. Later is when it will be too late.

Galveston Green?

TripAdvisor is an on-line travel “community,” an aggregation of tourists that share opinions and experiences about when and where they travel. Each year TripAdvisor publishes the results of its annual travel trends survey of more than 2,500 travelers from around the world. Among the top trends are issues that should be of concern (and interest) to the Galveston tourism industry.

This year’s survey show that travelers are growing greener. According to the survey “twenty-six percent of respondents said they will be more environmentally conscious in their travel decisions in the coming year. The green trend may be evident in their choice of transportation — 22 percent said they’ll go biking while on vacation this year, compared to 13 percent, last year. Forty-seven percent of travelers plan to go hiking this year, up from 43 percent, last year.”

TripAdvisorTravelCast is a barometer of what’s hot in travel destinations. TripAdvisor engineers have developed a proprietary algorithm that looks at several criteria including changes in search activity and postings throughout the world’s largest travel community. The TravelCast then predicts the rising stars in travel.

Consider the follow rising starts in domestic travel, according to TripAdvisor:

1. Sunny Isles Beach, Florida
2. Kitty Hawk (Outer Banks), North Carolina
3. Seward, Alaska
4.
Kailua, Hawaii
5. Blue Ridge, Georgia
6. Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania
7. San Marcos, Texas
8.
Paso Robles, California
9.
Rockport, Texas
10. Copper Mountain, Colorado

According to TripAdvisor,  “the major trends we’re observing are that travelers value cleanliness above all else and are becoming more environmentally conscious,” said Michele Perry, director of communications for TripAdvisor. “

As you can see above, Texas has two rising stars – San Marcos and Rockport. Rockport is a comparable coastal community that apparently has tapped into the green travel market more effectively than Galveston.

Let’s be honest. Ike has done us no favors when it comes to being clean. We will be hauling trash off of this island for the foreseeable future, and there is little that we can do to accelerate that process. But what about Galveston’s commitment to being a green community, a green destination? Surrounded by such natural riches, surely Galveston has the potential for being an iconic green coastal community?

Each morning I exercise by walking the seawall between 25th and Broadway (6th, to be technically correct). We have no bathrooms along the seawall, so the locals choose the beach for their urinal. Each evening there is a line of customers between the beer joints on the seawall and our beach, the urinal. Galveston green?

We allow the non-point pollution from Seawall Boulevard to wash across the pavement and into the Gulf. Rather than view the seawall as our most precious asset, we would rather have Thunder Road. Galveston green?

We still have entire developments on the west end of the island still on septic systems (you can imagine how they fared in Ike). Even while our bay is in the earliest stages of recovery from the worst natural disaster in Texas history (as measured by damage), we are still considering development on the west end (Marquette, Anchor Bay) that would add insult to injury. Galveston green?

How can a community surrounded by such natural beauty be so oblivious to the color green? I do not believe for a moment that our citizenry is color blind. Given the most recent surveys, Galvestonians are keenly aware of the value of our environment. What is lacking is the community leadership that is willing to take advantage of these remarkable resources that we inherited.

Galveston is unraveling. There are easy and early steps that can be taken to begin to reconstitute Galveston as a sustainable community. Without a blinding, overarching vision of where we are headed, though, and the leadership to get us there, Galveston will continue to decompose. The old adage is lead, follow, or get out of the way. So who exactly is in the lead?

I personally believe that Galveston can be green and still consider gambling.

I personally believe that Galveston can be green and still have a prosperous port.

I personally believe that Galveston can be green and still have a dynamic historic downtown.

I personally believe that Galveston can be green and still have strategically located resort development.

I personally believe that Galveston can be green and have a commuter rail that connects our work force to the economic engine that is Houston.

I personally believe that Galveston can be green and be fueled by alternative energy sources, including offshore wind.

I personally believe that we can be green and still have a world-class nature park and interpretive center at the East End Lagoons.

I personally believe that we can be green and still develop an infrastructure that shows the world how to live in harmony with a coastal environment.

I personally believe that we can be green and still have a burgeoning industry in restorative economics, hopefully developed in partnership with Texas A&M.

Most importantly, I believe that we can have a sustainable tourism industry that can carry our economy forward into the 21st Century.

But I believe that a truly sustainable Galveston is not possible without bold, dedicated leadership that is willing to envision a Galveston of the future, not one mired in the past. Until that leadership appears, we will continue to unravel, Strand by Strand, UTMB by UTMB, Shriners by Shriners.

Ted Eubanks